Updated 9:46 pm, Monday, April 6, 2015

STAMFORD -- As Harbor Point developer Building and Land Technology seeks legal closure on its controversial demolition of a South End boatyard, one environmental organization is urging a Superior Court judge in Hartford to move forward with a ruling on the city's long-running cease-and-desist case against the company.

Soundkeeper, a nonprofit group dedicated to protecting Long Island Sound, last week filed an affidavit opposing BLT's request to postpone the hearing, which is currently scheduled for April 27.

"This is a textbook case of `justice delayed is justice denied,'" argued Soundkeeper, in the affidavit.

John Freeman, an attorney for BLT, did not respond to a request for comment on Monday.

In 2012, the city's Zoning Board authorized a cease-and-desist order against BLT after the developer dismantled a working boatyard from a 14-acre peninsula that is part of its Harbor Point development. Among other regulations, the city cited the Harbor Point general development plan, which requires the developer to maintain the boatyard.

BLT went on to appeal the cease-and-desist, but a court hearing on the case has been delayed after several postponement requests by the developer. The Stamford-based company, which is led by CEO Carl Kuehner, has offered the city a plan to build a new boatyard in hopes of resolving the legal dispute and enabling redevelopment of the former boatyard site. Both parties have agreed to delay a court hearing as long as possible.

In its legal filings, Soundkeeper has maintained that the former boatyard site is legally protected under both local zoning and Connecticut law, which gives priority to water-dependent uses to encourage recreational boating. It has also argued that the current plans submitted by BLT to replace the boatyard have little likelihood of winning approval.

Should a court hearing take place and BLT lose the cease-and-desist case, the developer would face more than a million dollars in fines. In its affidavit, Soundkeeper wrote that the property owner "should not be permitted to perpetually defer a judicial determination of the legality of the decision it appealed, as well as those consequences."